Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of trying to balance against a baseload.

And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price per watt is.

When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially environmental costs) is extremely easy to fudge. There are all sorts of assumptions you have to plug in to the model where you could covertly insert a policy bias. If the 'measurer' had an agenda, it wouldn't be hard for them to push the figures one way or another and still keep the model looking clean-ish from the outset.

Bearing that in mind, it's worth pointing out that Exxon-Mobil is a major donor to the brookings institute - they're also part of the group ALEC that has been leading a massive attack on rooftop solar in the last 18 months.

One of those attacks, for instance, has been to increase the price by slapping up to 35% tariffs on Chinese panels through (mostly false) accusations of dumping. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were counted in the cost model, but subsidies were discounted.

Another thing they've been doing recently is to try to 'greenwash' natural gas - to make it look like the cleaner alternative to coal to capitalize on the fracking boom. One of the assumptions I can virtually guarantee that they've made here, for instance, is that global warming effect of methane leakage (which is very significant) has been entirely discounted.

Wind and solar power are commonly thought to be very expensive -- more expensive than conventional thermal fuel sources for generating electricity.

And that's true in areas where there is little sun, or little wind. Though, in windy areas (the US great plains) or sunny areas (Atacama Desert in Chile, much of Africa, Australia (outside the coasts), and Southwestern US), these are the least expensive source of new capacity and that's reflected in the free market -- what is getting built.

Until governments quit subsidizing _all_ source of energy at _all) points in the value chain, the market can't really respond efficiently.

One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket, with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer.

That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy.

Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?

Solar panels still generate power when it is overcast. Not as much as on sunny days, obviously, but a lot more than most people give them credit for.

On stormy days, also, wind generators will be generating a lot more power than usual. They are more than likely capable of heating your blanket.

Although less efficient, power on days when intermittency is high can also be transferred from pumped water storage and from hundreds of miles away where it might be sunny and windy.