Also, if we relied on Solar exclusively, we'd have an energy crisis every dusk and on every cloudy/rainy day.

There is a price for doing anything -- even "good" stuff -- which bioethanol was until the last 1-2 years. Two problems that I see: (1) who pays the price; and (2) what is a price to one person may not be one to another. That brings politics into it.

I would point out that this article seems to grossly overstate the efficiency of solar panels. Most of the numbers I've seen are 2-3%, as opposed to the article's "normal" 20%. Also, it is not easy to store electricity. Yes it's possible. But anyone who had seen the capacitor banks necessary to even start a 150 hp motor would not say easy.

Technology advances are possible and probably will happen. But I don't know whether it would be prudent to expect advances of the magnitude that this article seems to assume.

IMHO, nuclear for electric and coal conversion for portable liquid fuel offer the best opportunities.

"Could it be that because solar energy is "free""

What is free about it? A five square foot photovoltaic panel costs about $900. You need about 100 of these to run your house. What is free about that?

Thats the problem, while its the most abundant energy source we have and one of the only ones we'll never run out of (well I guess if we run out of it were most likely done for) we just don't have the technology to market it to the every day person. Give it a couple of decades and then it may be the answer.