This is a great example of how point data has been used to reinforce that negative sentiment, and how we need to readdress that sentiment given that over the pa

This is a great example of how point data has been used to reinforce that negative sentiment, and how we need to readdress that sentiment given that over the past decade to 15 years the benefit has swung strongly in favour of renewables as a way to bolster the grid and improve energy security. The rejections ignored the incoming economy of scale and ramping of manufacturing, instead focusing on an immediate cost comparisson instead of a reformed market and lifetime project benefit cost scale. When you plan out the lifetime finances for a fossil fuel project, you use the latter. The arguments were perverted to ignore benefits in order to ensure current fossil fuel projects were able to remain generating a profit for as long as possible, minimising their debt and heading towards profitability. As stated, I've been behind that curtain first hand, and my engineering background is in planning out the lifetime of a resource and how to best exploit it. But let's look at some numbers Australia, 2023:, renewable 1/4 the cost of nuclear: https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-r... IRENA, 2022: "For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022." Germany, suffered from early mover issues in ~2015 combined with poor winter planning, however is now reaping the benefits of cheaper generation cost to offset gas supply shortages for baseload due to European supply restrictions, 2021: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2021/levelized-cost-of-electricity-renewables-clearly-superior-to-conventional-power-plants-due-to-rising-co2-prices.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/... Even the UK prime minister Boris Johnson, a conservative pundit, went on record as stating that renewables were the quickest, cheapest, and easiest way to shore up the energy grid and remove dependence upon Russian oil and gas. This is a nice nod to the fact that the UK has been bulk importing Scottish renewable energy to ward against the massive price increases caused in Europe by the gas supply restriction: http://scotsman.com/news/environment/sustainable-scotland-without-energy-storage-the-uk-will-miss-net-zero-targets-and-continue-to-rely-on-foreign-imports-for-power-developer-warns-3633 http://scotsman.com/news/environment/sustainable-scotland-wi... Failing any rational risk taking due to the above illustrations, it's also critical that we reduce our greenhouse emissions. Another topic that is hotly debated when it really is straight forward. Even if renewables were to cost more, the educated policy makers would still steer toward either making them cheaper or installing them if the difference was marginal simply to ensure long term stability, maximising distributed generation and attempting to minimise the effects of a changing climate.