To truly answer this you'd need a free market in energy, which amongst other things would also require answering the question of "is fossil fuel power viable wi

To truly answer this you'd need a free market in energy, which amongst other things would also require answering the question of "is fossil fuel power viable without subsidies", which in turn would require halting the current allowed externalities the industry is built on as well as all sorts of other explicit and implicit subsidies (such as costs associated with military power to secure/protects supplies). To achieve good valuation/resource allocation/price discovery, in a market goods need to have all their associated costs built into the price. Since fossil fuels are allowed to dump pollution into the atmosphere and socialize the cost of that, there's no level playing field. Though we can observe that building in such a cost would be super easy, just regulate that all carbon emissions be net zero buy requiring a ton of CO2 be extracted from the atmosphere for every ton of CO2-equivalent emission. It's telling that the industry has been rabidly opposed. While letting the market work would be the most efficient approach, as a political matter it's proven near impossible to just jump straight into eliminating all subsidies, so we're left with more awkward dueling sets of them. But frankly the amount of subsidization of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution has been so mind blowingly expansive that it's pretty hard to take seriously any whining at all about trying to vaguely kinda even things out with regards to low pollution energy sources. All this putting aside decentralization/redundancy, national security objectives and so on.