Sorry if I was misleading. What I'm trying to learn is if renewables are actually cheaper from a factual stance. I don't doubt that taking advantage of gov grants and subsidies is a great strategy for the individual. But that doesn't, to me, equate with public figures claiming it is cheaper to produce energy that way. All those subsidies and grants have been financed by charging us all more. Rather like the gov push for "free" smart meters which we all pay for regardless of whether we actually have one.
A couple of the links above are really interesting reading but seem to me to skirt the issue of the actual costs. Even the brilliant in depth one relies on accounting procedures which don't reflect total reality. For instance, if wind generation is as cheap to maintain as stated why have California given up trying to keep their system running.
And why does it not take into account the massive costs of paying the Scottish windfarms not to produce?
I'm not an evangelist doom monger, I'd really like to learn some form of reality about the costs of energy production,
It's so convoluted
Nick
