These green energy sources produce electricity that is very expensive and unreliable. Apart from the direct subsidies of tax-stolen money given to the looters- there are hidden costs which are borne by power users. An example is the requirement that the networks must take all the power from solar and wind generators, however much and whenever provided. (I am not sure but I think this is a rule everywhere) Solar, and especially wind power, generation is notoriously fickle, this imposes variability on supply on top of variability of demand. The networks handle this by reducing base load coal generation which is the cheapest but not flexible in favor of flexible but higher cost gas generation. Another 'problem' arises, this enforced variability, even in gas powered generation is less efficient so CO2 emissions are higher than if the forced take was not imposed -more CO2 is actually a good thing but note the hypocrisy.
Warren Buffet has explained why he invests in 'renewables', government money as subsidies, government rules which hobble the competition thus putting more costs on consumers, cronyism at work.

This article is complete misinformation on the state of affairs in Germany. Here is better information:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...
I was just in the country this month visiting people that actually used to work at power plants (they're now retired). The fact of the matter is the Fukushima incident has accelerated Germany's push to get rid of their nuclear plants, but the inefficiencies and inconsistent power output of solar and wind will NEVER allow them to become proper replacements for the on-demand power generation that nuclear and coal can provide. It's real simple: coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear. That's it. If you're not going to do nuclear and you're importing oil from an unstable region of the world and importing natural gas means giving support to the would-be empire rebuilder, and you happen to already have a lot of coal sitting in your country...guess what's going to happen?

New tech for coal plants is in testing, and early results are very promising. Carbon footprint of emissions may be cut 15-50% (comparable to natgas fired plants) with power output up a similar amount. (Research is all private funded.)

Is it that we're so against renewables because of government subsidies, really? Every bit and part of America's power system is subsidized by the government and has been since the 30's.
The construction of dams
The REA
The nationwide GRID
Favored tax treatments'
Community monopoly
Etc, etc.

The real solution to our power system, efficiencies, and economics is the eventual development of decentralized power generation with minimal transmission and privatization to the individual level with no subsidies for any portion.

The development path of battery and capacitor technology is headed toward that decentralization. There will still exist a need for generating plants for large industry users, i.e.. Aluminum smelting, etc. but industries such as refineries generate enough waste in off gases and thermal losses to provide a large portion of their own power.

A good example is what the cell phone has done to hardwire telephone utility companies.

Laissez-faire Free Market.

I do not know much about power, but my gut feeling is as a greater percentage of energy comes from renewables, the cost will go up due to the need to maintain traditional energy production for times when the RE sources aren't available.

We need to find ways to make coal and nuclear safe.