Making one of the points I always make, the question also depends on how quickly you can ramp up production/deployment of various things, particularly with regard to suitable levels of safety. Although my understanding is that the generation density of wind power is too low for it to be an ideal technology, it does have the advantage that the absolute worst case if it goes wrong is that you might get in rare circumstances one person killed by a collapsing/exploding wind turbine. On the other hand, whilst I'd really like to see nuclear technologies deployed in an incrementally ramping up way leading to extensive use in maybe 50 years, I really don't want, as a vague estimate, 50 nuclear plants of exactly the same initial design built in the UK within the next 10 years. (Look at Holyrood palace in Edinburgh and the millennium bridge for two examples of typical non-safety critical engineering that have been screwed up in the UK.)

So I'd vote for the "all of the above, plus solar heating and to a lesser extent photovoltaic".

In that case VK I'd have to choose none of the above. There are approaches to be followed but it's difficult to imagine any effort to be scaled up to a significant level in less then 20 years. We do need to start now..it is URGENT. But even with a healthy economy and abundent credit it would take many, many years IMO. But that's not where we are today. Given the continuing deepening recession I doubt any real progress can even begin for 5+ years. It's that same scalability problem we keep running into.

None of those technologies will produce any significant amount of energy in the next 10 years.

Wind, traditional fission, solar thermal, and maybe solar pv are the only technologies that could be ramped significantly in that time frame (pv less so due to materials shortages). Assuming the will and capital were present to do so.