There is no single, big answer - just lots of little ones that need to be strung together intelligently. Efficient use of energy is a major part of any future energy policy. What isn't going to work is trying to replace all electrical generation by pure wind power or solar or biomass. What CAN work is a mix of efficient design (buildings and machinery), decentralisation / local sub-nets, appropriate resources - some wind, some solar (both photovoltaic and thermo), some tidal stream (ie "underwater windmills" -- but NOT tidal barrages, IMHO), hydro, geothermal, biomass (not the crazy "let's the corn market" way that is happening now....).

The MIX is important because as some nay-sayers like to point out "the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine". But over the scale a national grid - we even have a European grid - the wind WILL be blowing somewhere, the sun WILL be shining somewhere etc, and tides are absolutely 100% reliable and predictable and incredibly powerful. We should reconsider hydro-electric schemes instead as two-tier pumped storage rather than primary production - this would even out supply fluctuations and build in resilience. Local generation needs greater prominence - two way grid connects for micro/domestic schemes, solar water heating (and yes, in Britain -- I've had hot showers from purely solar power in FEBRUARY, you just need efficient collectors such as evacuated tube systems).

The problem is that governments are able to build nuclear power stations, but they can't coordinate small-scale intelligent design and sophisticated systems thinking.

Going nuclear is a cop out, it is NOT carbon neutral if you look at the whole fuel chain, and storage is a nightmare for fission products. Last I heard plutonium costs approx $1million PER YEAR PER TONNE to store safely, and it will need to be managed for hundreds of generations....