Yes, there are places like Fire Island where they put up wind generators, with marginal degree of success(there's been some controversy with the utilization of that site. Most of the time I fly by it, the rotors are sitting idle). Last I looked while I was flying over that spot, not a lot of people living out there.

The wind does blow here in the valley some, once in a while, but not often enough to be a reliable energy source. At most where I am it is a novelty. There are other good spots too, but my extension cords aren't quite long enough...

If you can scale up the solar panels for the area, they will indeed make the juice most of the time, even in the winter. However, compared to the lower 48, the cost per watt is far more expensive than comparable energy production from coal burning.

Now if I had an unlimited funding source, or even one a bit better than what I currently can obtain, then I would not be so concerned with the economical aspects of energy production up here where I am. However, the whole point of this thread was to determine if coal would be a viable and affordable energy source for the conditions I am stuck with. My conclusion is that coal will indeed work well, both as an alternate energy source here at home and a more portable one for retreat, bug out, and so on. You could implement wind and solar, but at considerably greater expense for the scale needed to make it truly reliable for an individual like me.

I am nonetheless quite interested in those other forms of energy collection. I am just trying to keep a practical aspect on my preps along with more exotic alternatives. Personal economics is still a fairly high priority, much as I would rather it weren't at this point.

In some remote locations otherwise lacking in reliable energy sources, wind and solar systems, however expensive they may be, are the only option. For the most part, their utilization here has to be subsidized to be economically competitive, either by the industry, or by taxes, or both.