Gas, oil, and coal are well developed and very mature technologies. New research only brings incremental improvements at this time.
Solar continues to be a developing technology. It is good for many specialized applications and only in the last few years has really become a competitive energy producer. Several members of this forum have rooftop panels that either generate power for their home or for their car, or both. Elon Musk announced last month that one of his companies is now selling a product that looks like shingles but is actually a solar roof that generates power and (according to Musk) will cost less to install than a traditional roof. If that bears out, who *wouldn't* want one? If I need a new roof and can pay more for shingles or less for a roof that generates electricity, why wouldn't I?
Wind power is good for places where the wind is regular and reliable. Not everywhere works. The newest generation of towers are more efficient than the last by a significant margin. This too is still an emerging technology and is advancing quickly. Only a few years ago wind was not profitable without government subsidies. Now it is, although sometimes only marginally. Ten years from now, that could be radically different.
Nuclear fission has room to grow, but concerns about safety after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, as well as waste disposal issues have virtually stopped all construction of new power plants. The last I heard, the NRC had not issued a licence for a new plant in twenty years.
Nuclear fusion, despite spending hundred of billions of dollars in research centers around the world, is only slightly closer to proof of concept than it was thirty years ago. Last year, a fusion plasma was created that broke records and lasted longer than ever before. And it lasted for less than a tenth of a second. They are still probably thirty years (but maybe ten) from being able to sustain a plasma, which is a necessary *first step* toward being able to generate power from that plasma. I do not expect to see fusion as a viable energy source in my lifetime, likely not in my children's lifetime, and probably not in my grandchildren's lifetime. And I am an optimist.
Matter/Anti-matter is a paper theory that exists only in the realm of science fiction. We currently do not have the science, or the mathematics, to even do serious research. In particular, we have absolutely no way to generate anti-matter, nor any idea how to do so.
A better prospect is orbiting solar farms. They've been talking about them for decades but the deal killer has always been how to get the power back to earth where we need it. The second has been that if the "aim" is bad, the power transmission drifts off of it's target and cooks anything with which it comes in contact. Current technology may make both of these possible. High energy microwave electronics may provide a way to transmit power from orbit, and the Japanese are pursuing a means to build a power receiver, at sea, far from land, that the orbiting power plant can "aim" at. deviations from the center of the target would shut down the transmission. Even the Japanese estimate that this is at least thirty years away.