On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:49:27 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

You just can't, or more likely just won't, hoist it on board, will
you?

According to the previously linked BBC Report in March 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (Mw). But anything under £90 a Mw would see Hinkley lose
money."

So currently wholesale is half of the MINIMUM of what new nuclear
would cost.

Today Gridwatch shows nuclear to be at 7.73GW.

So if that were to be generated by new nuclear build at the minimum
likely price of £95/Mw or 9.5p/unit (EDF have to make a profit, and it
makes the maths easier) that's £50/Mw or 5p/unit extra to the current
price, so that's:
7.73 * 1,000 * 24 * 50 = £9,276,000

So that's 13p/person or 40p/household that would have to be paid to
EDF over and above the current price of electricity, or about 2.5
times the extra cost of wind.

I'd fully agree with your costings IF wind was compelled to deliver an exactly
defined level of generation at an exactly defined time, in say 2030. The level
of generation has to be achieved under conditions of a stationary blocking high.

Nukes at £95 per MWh in are a bargain. Give me 30GW asap, and while we are at
it another 30GW of coal. In parallel hack every wind turbine down and tell the
FIT parasites to **** off.

--