Most economists agree that the sane policy is to tax the production of Greenhouse Gases and other pollutants. This prices in the externalities correctly for coal, gas and oil and then the free market does the rest by providing alternative electricity sources with less pollution, people and companies being less wasteful and more efficient, and new markets and products becoming viable (e.g. battery storage on the grid).

As part of that, all the existing subsidies given to fossil fuels should be removed, because subsidising and taxing them at the same time is silly.

(Some kind of measures should be take to return some of this tax money to the poor, as they pay proportionately more of their money on tax, and have the least ability to change their behaviour in the short term)

If this is done then renewables can thrive without any subsidy because they are already, in an economic literate reality, the better choice in large numbers of situations, and as their uptake grows this range will increase.

Why is this not done? Look at all the people in this thread who don't understand what an externality is and think taxes are evil. Hilariously, this has mostly just meant that the changes are still being implemented, but in a far more "big government" manner, with lots of rules, regulations and central control and money going to special interests.

Tax breaks so often get sucked up by the supplier, so the consumer sees none of it. Prices will jack up until, even with a consumer tax break, its almost exactly the same deal as conventional energy. Anything else is leaving money on the table, which no rational supplier will do.

Means, if tax breaks are not uniform (state by state for instance) then they server to impede new markets.

Law of unintended consequences.