My Shot At Global Warming/Best Energy Source Debate

In my opinion it doesn't matter what you think about global warming, the best solution that actually should cover everyone's best interests is the same: Develop clean renewable technology.

1. We, as a nation, wouldn't make a dime economically from nuclear power. Who would we sell the technology too? Nobody. We'd invest hundreds of billions and the only source of revenue from it would be people paying the energy company, much of which would be subsidized by the government.
2. With clean renewable energy, the clean technology so many countries covet could be developed here and sold overseas. It would become a major source of income to the United States selling all of this technology to everyone else so desperate to get their hands on it.
3. Nuclear technology is anti-free market. Which companies would we let start developing nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment without the government overseeing every minute detail? Nuclear power is a government only solution.
4. With clean renewable energy, all of the private sector can start today. For example, Google, a private company, right now is developing solar power to be sold commercially. Clean renewable energy is a free market solution that doesn't have to wait for the government and can start now.
5. 100 years or 4000 years, a finite time does matter. Nuclear energy just kicks the can down the road for when we as a country finally embrace a "forever" solution. (As long as there is wind, water and solar at least.) It will be, at least, twice as long and expensive to go from now-> nuclear -> clean energy (which has to happen eventually) then to just "go green" in the first place.
6. A green economy would not be a "kicking the can down the road" solution, but will, like a diamond, last forever.
7. People debate how long it actually will take to implement these solutions, so I won't quote speculative numbers. However I admit nuclear power seems that it would get implemented faster. However, the differences between the two aren't significant.
8. I'll go back on my "speculative numbers" promise to elaborate on my above point: A fully implemented nuclear solution completely controlled by government selling nothing overseas or allowing the ideas to be cultivate in a free market is not better than a 2/3 implemented clean energy solution where private companies are already building a free enterprise for such ideas and boosting the American economy selling things overseas.
9. Clean energy is better for the environment, for obvious reasons, and right leaning readers will probably only care about points 1-8 anyways.
10. Ditto for climate change.

So there you go, you can:

1. Pick a government run, anti-free market, "kick the can down the road" with which doesn't address things like environment, climate change, jobs selling "American" products solution: Nuclear Energy.
2. Pick a free-market friendly, addressing the real problem once and for all, America develops and sells for the good of it's economy, cultivates the the free market, environment/ climate change addressing solution: Clean and renewable energy.

To be honest, the very best solution would be something of a hybrid of the two, (Just like best economic policy is a free market + government, with emphasis on free market, policy.) but if I had to choose only one for the country to focus on during my lifetime, the answer would be clear: clean renewable energy.