IMO, the major problem is that most people want ONE solution to the energy problem.

Solar is fine for low level usage- but to refine aluminum you had best have nuclear. And the idea of putting nuclear in California, given the active fault lines, is stupid. ALL types of energy production need to be looked at, and the appropriate ones utilized.
Geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, wind, tidal... ALL have their place. BUT the entire life cycle MUST be looked at: Just because solar is "free" does not mean that we can afford the environmental impact of the heavy metals used in solar to electric cells. Now, solar/electric is considered "green" because we have sent the manufacture ( and pollution) over to SE Asia.

As for solar/steam, I think it is a great idea, but will produce limited energy for a given area. If we cover the entire area with 100% panals, can we even produce enough power to light the area we have covered? And will we need to? All questions NOT being asked by the advocates and opponants.