For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Google for "levelized cost of energy sources"

And this is about actual costs with mature technology, not even about some hypothetical future closed nuclear cycle, which - pardon the pun - is vaporware.

Why would you think this? To me it seems that an energy mix consisting of renewables and some saving by the use of more efficient technlogies could easily solve all our energy problems. And I seriously don't see how space is a problem. Nuclear could in theory, but only at a much higher cost.

I am always surprised about people promoting nuclear. Nuclear is hopelessly un-economocal, which means that investing in it even as a stopgap measure is a waste of resources. Even today, conventional power plants are not usually build without large subsidies. But conventional nuclear power plants are no solution to our energy problems. Only with breeder reactors is it possible to scale up nuclear to provide a significant part of the world's energy needs. And breeder reactors are even more expensive and costly...

Solar panels are usually cleaned by rain, but even in absence of rain as in California the small increase in efficiency is usually not not considered to be worth it.

For example, it could still be economical for investors if it gets enough direct subsidies. For related reasons, this information is also useful for policy makers. It would not usually make sense to have subsidies for something like this.

You average with wind power somewhere else and with solar and also balance with sources which can react quickly to changing demand, i.e. biomass, hydro, natural gas, ... For example, there is the concept of a virtual power plant which logically combines smaller plants to meet certain garantuees.

If you had done only a little bit of research, you would know that only a very small part of this price difference can be explained by the increased use of renewables. The additional cost which funds the renewables is about 6 cents (EUR) in 2014. The actual energy price on the market (before adding fees and taxes) was reduced by renewables.

Also one has to point out that other energy sources also receive subsidies (in all countries) but this is usual paid with general taxes.

No. You will understand the world much better if you dig deeper and rely on primary sources with hard data (I posted links elsewhere) and not just google something which already fits your opinion. Coal use in Germany is on a similar (high) level as always. This is not good, but has nothing to do with "returning to massive building of coal plants" which is a myth.

Yes, but they already took a capacity factor into account.

The energy storage thing is red herring. You balance with other sources.

What do you mean by Germany is reducing its reliance on wind turbines? Germany is scaling up all kinds of renewables. They way you get reliable energy out of it by averaging over large areas, by having a mix of energy production (e.g. solar and wind complement each other fairly well in Germany) and by having additional plants which can quickly adapt to demand (i.e. not nuclear and coal, but gas or biomass). This works well.

And while I am debunking all this FUD, here is an official benchmarking report from the EU:

http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page...

Tthe most reliable grids in Europe have Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, ...

Also I forgot: The article I have linked to has many links to its sources. Among other, I you follow the links you find the following article from "Die Zeit" at http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/... with the following quote "Wir beobachten die Versorgungsqualitaet sehr genau und haben keinen Hinweis, dass die Zahl der Stromausfaelle im Zuge der Energiewende zugenommen hat." from the head of the Bundesnetzagentur, the government institution regulating the electricity grid in Germany. Translation: "We monitor the quality of the supply very carefully and have no indication that the number of power outages increased during the Energiewende". So this nonsense if *officially* debunked.

You can find the actual numbers here: www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/
But feel free to stick to your own bias....

I made no statement as to why the change in the US. I just find it funny that a similar change in Germany is mis-interpreted as a failure of the Energiewende and as proof for the clearly incorrect claim that coal has replaced the turned-off nuclear plants. In contrast to all other hard evidence other wise, i.e. that the increase of renewables is much bigger than the decrease in nuclear.