> The difference is mostly taxes.
That turns out not to be the case.
> In Germany's case, it's taxes they charge for every unit of electricity.
That also turns out not to be the case.
> In France's case it's general general taxation that they've been using to support the nuclear industry.
That also turns out not to be the case. As I wrote before, in France cheap and reliable nuclear is used to subsidize other parts of the economy, not the other way around.
> And that's for renewables mostly built at the start of the price decline and nuclear mostly built at the start of the price increases.
What's that supposed to mean?
> When you have to limit your argument to cherry picked countries and cherry picked timeframes and cherry picked metrics, it's a sign it a very poor argument.
LOL.
What other two countries, one of which went all-in on nuclear, and the other that went all-out on nuclear are you going to pick to compare? Preferably sizable industrial countries that are otherwise roughly comparable.
Also, what other metrics other than: price, time to completion, and CO2 emissions would you prefer?
