In answer to the OP.
There isn't one. Mainly due to hypocrisy and nimbyism that nearly everyone in this country exhibits.
"Your area is a prime site for removal of shale gas"
"You can't do that here"
"Ok, then it'll have to be a wind farm, that's nice and green"
"But that'll spoil my view out over the fields"
"We'll it's just going to have to be nucl........."
"Oh my god, that means certain radioactive hell and destruction"
"As I was saying, that means it has to be nuclear, but as your area doesn't have a solid granite base rock, it'll have to go in someone else's backyard"
"We'll, I've always said nuclear energy had a part to play, and I know it's a lot safer these days"
The sad fact is that there are too many vested interests on one level, and a whole other level of people who actually enjoy the political instability that energy uncertainty brings.
The best solution is just to use less of what we've got now until someone comes up with either
A) something better
B) the will to make a decision and carry it through no matter what