Legally, a company soliciting a public investment has a very strong legal incentive to disclose every last risk out there, no matter how minor to avoid future frivolous lawsuits (e.g., "we warned you that was a possible risk").  The standard advice to companies preparing those forms is therefore to identify every possible risk, up to and including the risk that the CEO could be struck by a stray meteorite on the way to work.

Bottom line is that I would not infer anything the probability that Imperium puts on that particular risk just because they disclosed it as a risk.

Coal... obviously bad.

Oil... obviously bad.

Natural Gas... obviously bad.

Photovoltaics... bad... envision scaled-up zinc mines (for cadmium and indium) , iron mines (for more indium), mineral extraction operations, processing facilities, organic solvents, the waste released into the air and water, abuse of third-world countries, damage to natural habitat, damage to natural water tables, cost of recycling damaged or old systems, health problems, et cetera that would inevitably happen if PV approached replacing fossil fuel.

Fission... bad.

Fusion... not ready for prime time even though a ton of money has been invested in it, probably hazardous in some way we've not anticpated but will learn about too late.

Biofuel... bad... destruction of natural habitat, starving children, release of other greenhouse gases, everyone who grows the stuff dumps 10x more fertilizer on their fields than they have to, temptation to use genetic tampering to improve efficiency.

Wind... bad... intermittent, have to make the generators out of something that gets extracted from the ground, no one wants to look at them, ugly as a strip mall, bird killers.

Waves... threat to ocean life.

[Hey... do wind and wave powered generators leak fluids like other mechanical devices?]

Geothermal... not enough capacity, results in release of toxic gases from the ground, can permit hazardous chemicals to enter ground water.

Hydroelectric... damages natural habitats, creates flood hazards, displaces communities..

Hydrogen... has to come from something already mentioned, so not really alternative energy.

Perpetual Motion Machine... discredited following 1950s boom.

Pixie Dust... imaginary.

Forward!

You left out one of the more obvious ones.
Solar Thermal.

That and Wind isn't that bad if you do it on a large scale with some storage.  The Bird issue is primarily with smaller turbines that have faster moving blades.  Much of it could actually be made from carbon fibre if we ever were hard up on materials.

My experience visiting the Grist website suggests that a majority of environmentalists tend to focus on the downside pretty much all of the time. Perhaps I'm subconciously just trying to fit in.

It seems almost every proposal is quickly shot down as...

not practical,
not ready for prime time,
full of potential for unintended consequences,
not sufficiently natural,
a new incarnation of old thinking,
a potential source of some new pollutant,
raises the cost of something else people need,
lowers the cost of something else people selling,
is controlled by someone we dislike,
furthers corporate domination,
imposes Western culture on developing nations,
encourage some other bad behavior,
creates dependence on some other natural resource,
or does not solve the problem 100%.

Perhaps, someday, a majority of environmentalists will develop truly open minds and discuss, based on accurate information, both the positives and negatives of various ideas for protecting and restoring biodiversity and natural habitats.

Yes, biodiversivist, you make it sound a lot simpler than it is.

Forward!

Well there is the most simple/effective approach.
Energy Efficiency.

Thats largely why I see BioFuels as a big loser.

Since what we really should be doing is putting that focus/money/attention into changing our cars.

__

It's kind of like someone all hyped about installing a hyper-expensive solar panels.

And yet their washer and refrigerator is using efficiency ratings from the 1970s.

__

We need to do demand side management, before we do supply side management.

I have to agree with you 100% regarding energy efficiency.

Please provide an opinion on the following matter...

There appear to be two extreme groups engaged in battle. On the one hand, there are the "environmentalists" who focus on our car culture as a major problem. Get rid of the cars and we get rid of much pollution. This totally disregards how deeply rooted personal transportation is, how much we rely on it, and how much people value it. On the other hand, there are the "you can have my SUV when you can pry it from my cold dead hands" people who live in a fantasy world of infinite fuel and infinite space to dump the waste products of their life-style.

Is there a happy medium? Will "environmentalists" ever find a way to accept automobiles? Or do they really just want them eliminated, regardless of how energy-efficient someone might make them? Can someone create an attractive and efficient car that, say, current SUV drivers will really want? Is it physically possible to build an efficient, safe, and attractive personal automobile? Was the electric Saturn an impractical fantasy or was it truly viable?

Forward!