electricity that does not emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases?  Right now we have three sources of baseload (look it up on Wikipedia) electricity: fossil fuels, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.  The lowest emitter is nuclear.  Its comprehensive life cycle carbon emissions are about the same as those for the comprehensive life cycle of wind power (remember, the concrete and the steel have to be made by burning coal).  Those are our choices.  

Geothermal can supply baseload if you happen to live in an area with vulcanism.  But no city is going to get all its power from geothermal.

Wind and solar supply less than 1% of our electricity.  In relation to the small amount that they do supply to the grid, these renewables have received huge subsidies.  Of course fossil fuels get the biggest subsidies, and all energy in the US is subsidized.  In Denmark wind power has to be subsidized because it cannot pay its way on its own.  But I have no problem with subsidizing renewables and trying to find a way to store their weak and intermittent electricity in a way that might assist them in larger scale applications.  They always need backup.

The riddle for me is that commercial nuclear power supplies 73% of our clean electricity and in over 50 years has not caused one death to a member of the public.  In the last century dam failures killed over a thousand Americans and in this century so far have killed several people.  Coal-fired plants kill 24,000 Americans a year (fine particulates).  And to back up wind and solar, fossil fuels are burned.

In terms of environmental impact, per square meter nuclear is cleaner and greener, according to J. Ausubel,head of environmental studies at Rockefeller U., than all other energy sources.  Which is why I as an enviro support it.

How much will these subsidies actually cost (in dollars) the US taxpayers?