Ranking
Candidates ranked by min-pillar score — the weakest of the four pillars (Opportunity size, Economics, Feasibility & legality, Durability & trend), deliberately not the mean, so one strong pillar can't mask a fatal weak one. Click a country on the map, or a row below, for the underlying detail. See Methodology for the full scoring definitions.
Min-pillar score: 0% 50% 100% excluded from ranking (real scorecard exists, click for why) not tracked
| Rank | Candidate | Min-pillar | Binding pillar | Mean | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ▸Australia (South Australia) | 73% | D (Durability) | 85% | Partial |
| 1 | ▸Australia (Victoria) | 73% | C/D (tied) | 85% | Partial |
| 3 | ▸Brazil | 70% | B (Economics) | 84% | Full |
| 3 | ▸GB | 70% | B (Economics) | 85% | Full |
| 3 | ▸Norway (NO5) | 70% | C (Feasibility) | 83% | Full |
| 3 | ▸Vietnam | 70% | D (Durability) | 79% | Full |
| 7 | ▸Chile | 60% | B (Economics) | 79% | Partial |
| 7 | ▸Egypt | 60% | D (Durability), among scored pillars | 71% | Partial |
| 7 | ▸Texas (ERCOT) | 60% | C (Feasibility) | 78% | Partial |
| 10 | ▸Sweden (SE4) | 55% | C (Feasibility) | 76% | Full |
| 11 | ▸Norway (NO2) | 53% | A (Opportunity) | 75% | Full |
| 11 | ▸Sweden (SE1) | 53% | A (Opportunity) | 75% | Full |
| 13 | ▸Bulgaria | 50% | A (Opportunity) | 60% | Partial |
| 13 | ▸India | 50% | B (Economics) | 71% | Full |
| 13 | ▸Netherlands | 50% | B (Economics) | 64% | Full |
| 13 | ▸Norway (NO4) | 50% | A (Opportunity) | 78% | Full |
| 13 | ▸Romania | 50% | A (Opportunity) | 60% | Partial |
| 13 | ▸Sweden (SE2) | 50% | C (Feasibility) | 70% | Full |
| 19 | ▸Portugal | 47% | D (Durability) | 71% | Partial |
| 20 | ▸Germany | 45% | C (Feasibility) | 71% | Full |
| 21 | ▸Argentina | 40% | B (Economics) | 60% | Partial |
| 21 | ▸Czechia | 40% | A/C/D (3-way tie) | 40% | Partial |
| 23 | ▸Spain | 35% | C (Feasibility) | 76% | Full |
| 24 | ▸France | 30% | B (Economics) | 51% | Full |
| 25 | ▸Tunisia | 27% | D (Durability), among scored pillars | 51% | Partial |
| 26 | ▸Croatia | 20% | A (Opportunity) | 46% | Full |
| 26 | ▸Greece | 20% | C (Feasibility) | 58% | Full |
| 26 | ▸Sardinia (IT_SARD) | 20% | B/D (tied) | 47% | Partial |
| 26 | ▸South Africa | 20% | B (Economics) | 67% | Partial |
| 30 | ▸Norway (NO3) | 10% | A (Opportunity) | 66% | Full |
| 30 | ▸Poland | 10% | B (Economics) | 46% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Denmark (DK1) | 0% | B (Economics) | 20% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Denmark (DK2) | 0% | B (Economics) | 22% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Finland | 0% | B (Economics) | 35% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Ireland | 0% | B (Economics) | 28% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Norway (NO1) | 0% | A (Opportunity) | 48% | Full |
| 32 | ▸Sweden (SE3) | 0% | A (Opportunity) | 49% | Full |
Deliberately excluded from this ranking
Colombia
A real, correct 0% that would misrepresent a genuine future opportunity (its pipeline is connecting, not yet curtailing) -- doesn't fit BPO's own moratorium-shaped design either. A real methodology gap, flagged but not yet solved (Section 9.90).
DRC / Grand Inga
Fits the BPO (pre-emptive oversupply risk) framework, Section 4.6b, not the standard scorecard.
Iceland
Reframed under Mechanism 6/7 with mostly n/a cells -- not comparable on the standard 11-sub-category scorecard.
Laos
Reframed under Mechanism 6/7 with mostly n/a cells -- not comparable on the standard 11-sub-category scorecard; confirmed landlocked (C2=1).
Paraguay / Itaipu
Given full Mechanism-7 onboarding (Section 9.85) -- Pillar B is wholly n/a, an even more extreme case than Laos; also a confirmed landlocked C2 blocker for this project's floating-vessel format. Its real ~10.7 TWh/yr unused-entitlement surplus is not simply 'legally locked until 2027' -- domestic consumption growth (new AI/data-center loads sited in Paraguay) already bypasses Annex C entirely and is happening now, at real scale ($50bn+ committed).