| Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water. I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth. Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind. The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions. To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies! Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability. Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies. https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2... What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables. So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative. So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better. |
The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant.
> I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.
I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.
And thank you for confirming my point:
>off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.
Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet.
Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios.
So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable.
QED.