Verified answer

You can't make a meaningful comparison that way.

A coal plant, for example, may have 30% thermal efficiency. The coal it burns, though, comes from plants that had only about a 2% efficiency in turning sunlight into biomass. A nuclear plant using the same steam technology as a coal-fired plant has about the same thermal efficiency, but involves far less fuel - indeed, some nuclear plants make more fuel than they use.

Thin-film solar panels are only about 1/5 as efficient, area for area, as standard silicon solar panels, but cost about 1/10 as much. Either panel has far higher overall efficiency than a coal-fired plant, but involves manufacturing costs that makes their electricity more expensive if subsidiary costs (like adverse health effects) are neglected.

Relative availability of energy is also an issue. Solar and wind aren't always available. A hydroelectric dam becomes useless if the river feeding its reservoir dries up.

The wiki article referenced discusses relative costs of electricity produced by various methods.

I recommend you watch the science channel and look for the TV show hosted by bill Nye