So much of what we read and are told about complex issues are affected by the widely varying views of a range of stake-holders. As is usual, those with much power and money have more opportunity to disseminate the message that they wish to promote. Sadly, that rarely aligns with the interests of the general public, unless by coincidence. Worse still, such viewpoints rarely take a broad contextual view of the issue or even its long term implications.
The fact check referred to below is a sound piece of work that provides an accessible understanding of major factors relating to the relative cost of renwable provision of energy as compared with fossil fuel generated energy.
Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t consider much more, if anything, other than actual financial costs. This, I believe is a mistake. The nature of our environment, the effect of emissions on climate change and pollution, and other varying considerations, from the nature of the working environment of those employed to generate the power to future implications for improved structural arrangements for the distribution and storage of energy, including greater individual and local self reliance, are just some of the factors which have both a social well-being and a direct financial cost.
Any valid assessment of relative costs needs to take the context of energy generation into account and particularly the effects of one method compared to another on the environment and on public well-being and sustainability.
On that basis, taking the direct financial comparisons from the fact check as a base and adding on the social and financial costs and implications of the methods of generation, I fail to see how anyone can legitimately argue that it is reasonable, sound, or rational to pursue fossil fuel energy generation.
You can, of course, make up your own mind.