did you also included a calculation on the subsidies for nuclear ? http://laka.org/docu/boeken/pd...
first off, let me thank you for the link. I will most certainly read it in full, but if I may, there's a phrase at page 5 which put my nose slightly out of joint:
[...]When only looking at money transfers and tax reliefs (see Table S.1), it can be concluded that the total amount of subsidy that the EU and its Member States give to renewable energy is substantially lower than the amount of subsidy to fossil fuels, and probably in the same order of magnitude of the subsidies to nuclear alone.
It 's my view that no serious analyst would be caught writing such a phrase in a study summary, and I'll show you why.
Imagine that the total available energy pool at the grid operator is 100 units, of which 85 is fossil, 10 is nuclear and 5 is renewables. in a "neutral" world, subsidies per unit would be equal (or zero, which is a subset case), and subsidies to fossil fuels would dwarf subsidies to renewables 85 to 5. So, knowing that fossil fuels get mmore money does not show or imply any preference or disdain against any particular source, unless some other information is added. in my view therefore calling that page a summary is an insult to the english language, or an ode to gullibility. As Dr. Evil said, " I am the boss, need the info"