Tesla

I agree with the sentiment of your post (that economics should determine the source of energy) but you've got some of the details wrong. It is not true that making wind turbines or solar cells requires more oil energy than they will ever produce. In windy areas it is actually cheaper to generate electricity from those large wind turbines than from burning oil. (I live in New England, a pretty liberal area in general. All of these lefties give lip service to alternative energy.. until someone proposes building a wind turbine farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, "ruining" the view from their vacation homes. You gotta love liberalism!) Both wind and solar, on small scales, are sometimes more economical than oil / coal generated electricity from the grid. It depends on the specifics of the situation. Many people who move to backwoods areas are shocked to discover that the local utility will charge $100,000 or more for an unreliable connection to the nearest electrical grid (the cost depending on how far they are from the grid). For these people it is worthwhile to invest $30,000 or so and get solar panels, wind turbines, and the supporting infrastructure to generate all the power they will ever need. So renewable energy definitely has its uses.

Before deciding to stay an extra year as an undergraduate you might want to consider the cost. It might be cheaper to take the same courses as a graduate student. If you get tuition waivers, as some programs provide to graduate students, that would be 1 year that you don't have to pay as an undergraduate. But without waivers tuition as a grad student is inevitably more expensive than for an undergraduate. I suggest you change your attitude towards what employers want... The employment marketplace is about supply and demand after all. You should definitely work in the field you like but there is a lot to be said for tailoring your skill set to make yourself more employable.

I've got degrees in math and physics, and I currently work for a high-tech company. Speaking from personal experience I can say that in industry the difference between a scientist and an engineer is very slight. This will vary depending on your field, but for the several companies I've worked most technical people end up doing much of the same work. Majoring in physics is a bit of a double edged sword. The generality of the field gives you a very broad skill set and a great resume, but at the same time it doesn't really give you specific expertise. Let's just say that I had to slog away at crappy jobs for a few years before getting good work. As far as preparing you for graduate study in engineering, I think it's great. You get great problem solving, mathematics, programming, and electronics experience, all of which are very valuable tools for engineering.