Solar and Wind have been developed and proved to be cost effective already.  They just need implementing at scale and avoiding the nimby response that they shouldn't be installed near me.

Wind and solar intermittent power sources require 100% backup for when the wind and sun are not available. So you might as well just commit 100% to small modular nuclear reactors and end the subsidy farming that has encouraged the renewable sector.

European panel manufacturers are now going out of business as energy prices sky rocket. Meanwhile China cracks on making panels with their coal fired energy systems and slave labour.

Another point about Wind and Solar to consider is that we currently pay about £2 billion  per year to switch off the power generated when the grid does not require the energy produced. The producers then are allowed to use the spare energy for off grid purposes like battery storage and flywheels then are allowed to sell the energy back to the grid. Effectively they get paid twice. Poor show when we are all facing massive energy bills.

But that's a policy issue isn't it, nothing to do with wind and solar itself. 

It's like how we seem to obtain gas from the north sea, sell it to europe to store and then buy it back at a price hike?

Agreed - but all we have at the minute is the survey I've put the link to, maybe if there's a large backlash response from industry they'll listen more?