Reply #67: There is MORE R&D required with nuclear than renewables.

[kristopher]

That statement is true, so if you have evaluated nuclear as needing no further R&D then neither does wind or solar.

Yes, we have the technical capability and the economic where-with-all to make a full transition within ten years. The comparison that most clearly demonstrates this is the ramp up to produce weapons platforms (tanks, planes and marine vessels) in WWII. As I've said, the technology isn't complex, we just need to foster a sufficient industrial base to get the job done.

You know, it is really easy to use google for things like this. For example "transition renewables 10 years" yielded as the first result:
http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/

"...That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy... "