Your arguments are a bit disingenuous, especially given your previous posts.
I agree that nuclear offers a solid background, and we need more. At the same time, nuclear has its limitations as well:
Thorium is not widely used as nuclear fuel primarily because it is not fissile (cannot sustain a chain reaction alone), requires expensive, complex reprocessing to become usable, and cannot currently compete with the established, cheaper infrastructure of uranium fuel. While thorium-232 is abundant and fertile, it must be converted into fissile uranium-233, a process that is technologically and economically demanding. U-238 has the same non-fissile characteristics, while U-235, which makes up most nuclear reactors, has Pu-239 as a parent, making processing complicated and hazardous. Most of the byproducts of U-235 are also long lived and radioactive, if not necessarily fissile.
Personally, I think we'll see more Thorium-based reactors - even given the processing complexities, they are still safer than U-235 and the US has ample reserves of Th. However, I expect it will take several decades before that happens on a wide enough scale to make a real difference.
Kinetic and geothermal energy systems have obvious limitations; solar was making inroads before the Great Pumpkin took office, but these were always part of a full spectrum energy strategy. With TFG laying waste to government, I honestly don't see any significant positive energy change beyond reverting to coal and seeing the petroleum sector gouge consumers.
= new reply since forum marked as read