On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Yes, both are cheaper without subsidies in some places than
fossil fuels in the same places.

Those would be places that rely on imports, I'm guessing.

No, they are places with abundant wind or sun.

We're in a transition now where
certain fossil fuels

That'd be the ones that we use the most of, and always have, I'm
guessing.

No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both of which
are now being priced out of the energy generation market. Petroleum
remains as the dominant energy source for transportation, but that
will shift rapidly over the next 10 years or so. The main thing that
is keeping fossil fuels in the game is natural gas from fracking and
shale. But that's a short term pulse which is already flattening out.

As are the environment and health (and, eventually, military, I'm
guessing) costs of solar and wind, and supporting technologies
(neitehr is particularly useful without sophisticaed battery
technology).

Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials, so there
is no military cost. And battery technology does not have a large
environmental impact. Nor do the production of wind or solar
production equipment.