I did consider wind and solar. I actually looked at some very comprehensive cost benefit analyses and I will go into them in another article. Both technolgies have high CAPEX and OPEX costs compared to fossil fuels. The intermittent nature of wind power unfortunately means it is also very unreliable (so you need reliable backup co-gen - nuclear for example, or gas, or oil, or coal - to cover unpredictable loss of wind power). Solar has scaling and reliability problems we have not yet solved otherwise we would all have solar panels already (and me too). It is cost related, quite simply.

I agree that we need to look at local micro generation and more effective exploitation of existing resources (eg. efficient very low head hydro such as that being developed by HydroVenturi). Moreover, it is to be hoped that innovations in solar technologies will help us remove some of the dirtier technologies, but my point is that today it is not possible to find a technology that can scale like coal or gas at a similar cost (note that last bit), other than nuclear - and it this latter is not as polluting as we are led to think. Note, I am not an opponent of "green" technologies, I just think we need to avoid an emotional approach.

As for scattering energy production and thus reducing the impact or attractiveness of terrorist attacks, this is a red herring in my opinion. The total US energy industry is already so widely dispersed geographically and by technology mix that an attack on a single facility of any kind would have negligable effect on overall available power and probably cause more hot air through hysteria than through expolosion. The latest nuclear reactors are almost impossible to disrupt in a way that would cause them to explode as at Chernobyl. This has been so for western designs for a long time.
However, I have to admit that he idea of a sort of terrorist Don Quichotte pointing his trusty SUV at a succession of wind turbines frightens the life out of me.....it might make gas prices go up.