What was mentioned was that a portfolio of renewable resources could work with to reduce the need for and possibly even supplant fossil fuels. This would include wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro electric along with the emerging technologies like they have out in Nevada (powers about 40,000 houses currently) where the sun’s rays are focused to heat water that will convert to steam then electricity from the turbines they turn.
He did not SAY "renewables" --- because he knows, that won't fly. Of all the things you mentioned as "renewable" they all have SERIOUS problems and limitations for ON grid generation.
Hydro is no longer considered green. See the Sierra club and other orgs that PUSHED for hydro in the 30s and 40s...
Geothermal is actually a very dirty MINING OPERATION very similar to fracking and is NOT REALLY "renewable". The wells peter out over time, the toxic brine eats the plumbing and NEW holes and plants need to be built.
Tidal SOUNDS green until you see the ginorous weed eater type turbines they want to place in sensitive coastal waters. Or as they are doing in UK building WALLS and natural barriers and damage PRIME ESTUARY outlets to the ocean and bays. It's NOT clean or enviromentally friendly..
What else ya got??
I thought he might be talking about 3rd gen nuclear power which produces ZERO toxic emissions and you can power a large house with about a AAA battery sized chunk of fuel for an entire year. New designs can be buried, don't have to be water cooled. Fuel is designed to be handled easier.
MAJOR climate change scientists are in favor of nuclear. James Hansen the Chief GW Activist in a labcoat has said that "if you believe you're gonna solve Global Warming with JUST solar and wind -- you might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny"... I'll go with the GW zealot on that one..