Yes to all of the above. We need everything we can get our hands on.

The only thing we need to remember is that, whatever we do it will cost something.

Since we're featuring wind as an example: Wind is great, especially for farm and other low-population areas, but it doesn't work as well for more urbanized local production as might have been hoped. Being from the suburbs of New York, I'm very familiar with Mayor Bloomberg's plan. He wanted to put windmills on every bridge and every building. He has since backpedalled when informed of the logistics of this. It's much more expensive to put in place than he originally thought. Also, in order to turn a generator you need gears which make noise. There have been many communities where windmills have been shot down because the neighbors hate the noise that they make. And in communities where the view is important (i.e. shore communities) many people consider windmills to be an eyesore. The most famous case was the windmill farm proposed for the cost of Cape Cod that was shot down by the Kennedy family because it would disturb their view of the ocean. On the other end of the scale, the massive windmill farms proposed by T. Boone Pickens would be a great idea IF we can get them to work as proposed. Even then, they can't be built without massive government subsidies.

Mind you, I'm not shooting down windmills. I'd love to see them work out (As well as all of the other alternate energy sources). The problems I've mentioned above are not unsurmountable. I'm just saying that every solution winds up costing something, and often times the cost is much higher than the planners originally thought. Known solutions such as nuclear and yes, drilling for our own oil need to be kept around until we work out the kinks in other proposals.

Edit note: Wow, a lot of stuff got posted while I wrote this :w00t: (including a good response from Steve) - I think some of the comments say it better than me...