[amanaplanacanal]

> Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal

Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely. In most parts of the US, it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than any of the fossil fuels. In some areas, I've read that it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than to run existing fossil plants. I don't know what the rest of the world looks like though.

[ThomPete]

No, it's not cheaper as you have to factor in the backup energy you have to build to support when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

I would urge you, if you are really interested in the truth and a rational position on this, to go and do the research. |

I did which is why I am very very aware of the difference between speculation and demonstration and how much of the claims of wind and solars ability to power most of the worlds energy needs are a completete utopia.

Again less than 1% of the world's energy is the consumption of solar and wind, and that's with all the political tailwind it has gotten.

A lot of the cost of building nuclear is extreme bureaucracy and the kind of security metrics are being asked, yet it's still much better than solar and wind in the long run, much safer, more stable, cleaner, scalable and cheaper.

So yeah lets remove the subsidies. Wind and solar will fall apart.