Germany vs France
Full research http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2019/7299-system-costs.pdf
Short https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Nuclear safer, cheaper (in short and long term) and produce less carbon emission
Full research http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2019/7299-system-costs.pdf
Short https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
Nuclear safer, cheaper (in short and long term) and produce less carbon emission
He is so pro nuclear and anti renewables that he simply makes stuff up in order to show $50 is less than $5. Oh look, he's branded the graphs with his lobbying outfit logo. Why is he not comparing with other countries that are getting it right? Ah because the conclusion was determined before he wrote a single word.
He was drastically wrong on the Amazon recently too: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...
Also that don't rely on hydropower. That's something limited by geography.
Also, the paper was from the OECD NEA, nothing to do with Shellenberger.
The "obvious" choices would seem to be Sweden, Iceland, Morocco, Denmark and UK. Perhaps China, or even Costa Rica who seem to have the world's most ambitious target - carbon free by 2021. I'm sure there's others progressing quickly.
But you should provide some papers which support your position
If we want civil discussion