Orrrr we can just use the most green option available... nuclear. We should be focused on energy density, not incredibly inefficient methods like wind and solar.,(reply>), @0000000 0000000 if you want to pick a single reason instead of the whole picture, I guess I can't stop you. However, I will point out that wind is heavily subsidized while nuclear has an incredible amount of red tape that drastically increases the initial costs. Hell, even getting the government to approve a new nuclear plant takes a decade!<br><br>We also shouldn't just ignore other factors. Do you know how bad wind turbines are for predatory birds? They are being slaughtered. Endangered species and all. How about how inconsistent wind is and the transmission infrastructure that is requires? I would bet the costs for batteries to smooth out the power supply aren't in the cost estimates. Hell, there aren't enough rare metals to even make the batteries required to do it! Speaking of rare earth metals, do you know how much pollution is involved in mining for them? You think you are saving the world by falsely trying to lower greenhouse gasses (hint, you aren't, they are just being emitted in different stages of production), but instead you are releasing incredible amounts of toxins into the environment.<br><br>Wind and solar sound great until you actually examine the entire picture instead of keeping the blinders on by focusing on singular talking points.,(reply>), Nuclear power is more expensive then windpower.