This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north. Northern Germany is

This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north. Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables. What problem are you solving with even more overproduction in the north leading to re-dispatch? > CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation. > Denmark required CfDs too. https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind- https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-... I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything. Of course not lookign at solar, storage or on-shore wind. Lets lookat those. In Germany, which still do CFD bids for solar, even though a ton get built on pure market value, the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity. The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero or negative. They trade money for a tiny bit of certainty. That is how far we've come. > Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not. Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays when the majority of the eastern european nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary? People like you love to complain about these things, but you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.