The strike price they’re complaining about is equivalent to 9.52 pence per kWh.
I’m going to pre-empt the usual arguments here by giving my opinion as someone who works in the energy industry.
Some nuclear is useful for the uk, but an all-or-nothing mass build out like many here want will be an enormous misallocation of resources.
Given our geography, our main focus should be wind. Some nuclear is useful for the frequency inertia it gives and for “raising the floor” for wind (enough nuclear to help wind meet demand more often, but not so much that they start competing against eachother).
Also a lot of people mention using nuclear as a backup for wind, this is an incredibly silly idea – nuclear needs to run all the time or it is not worth the money at all.
Ultimately owned by the French (EDF). Do the government ever think about the long-term repercussions of this kind of thing?
What subsidies have they agreed on?
I think 20p per kWh produced for the lifetime of the plant is the European average.
£700 million public funds and owned by EDF energy, a company making record profits from the public for their energy costs.
And I bet this energy will be shared with France.
What about the plants still having construction delays and way over budget?
What idiots, nuclear takes yrs to decom, we do not need more
Are they really going to build another nuclear power plant at sea level FFS !!?
I’m just going to leave this here, long but informative, guess what, the British public have been stiffed again with a ‘brilliant deal’
11 comments
Good, can’t come fast enough. We should have started this years ago.
Only 20 years too late, still, never too late to start doing the right thing.
My favourite old article about nuclear power:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant
The strike price they’re complaining about is equivalent to 9.52 pence per kWh.
I’m going to pre-empt the usual arguments here by giving my opinion as someone who works in the energy industry.
Some nuclear is useful for the uk, but an all-or-nothing mass build out like many here want will be an enormous misallocation of resources.
Given our geography, our main focus should be wind. Some nuclear is useful for the frequency inertia it gives and for “raising the floor” for wind (enough nuclear to help wind meet demand more often, but not so much that they start competing against eachother).
Also a lot of people mention using nuclear as a backup for wind, this is an incredibly silly idea – nuclear needs to run all the time or it is not worth the money at all.
Ultimately owned by the French (EDF). Do the government ever think about the long-term repercussions of this kind of thing?
What subsidies have they agreed on?
I think 20p per kWh produced for the lifetime of the plant is the European average.
£700 million public funds and owned by EDF energy, a company making record profits from the public for their energy costs.
And I bet this energy will be shared with France.
What about the plants still having construction delays and way over budget?
What idiots, nuclear takes yrs to decom, we do not need more
Are they really going to build another nuclear power plant at sea level FFS !!?
I’m just going to leave this here, long but informative, guess what, the British public have been stiffed again with a ‘brilliant deal’
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant