On 19/05/2021 08:23, Pancho wrote:
On 18/05/2021 19:36, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
We should have built more baseload power stations - particular nuclear.

That ship sailed 10+ years ago.Â* For the one we are building, the
wholesale
price per unit is roughly double that of renewables ( in normal
conditions)
so it's going to need subsidy to sell its power.Â* It's not cheap baseload
it's expensive baseload.


I doubt that your figures are true.

We need to factor in reliability of supply. It also does not address
that the cost of renewables (we mean wind) will go up as the best sites
are taken. Getting to 3 times current electricity generation, needed for
heat and transport, will be hard with wind.

On the other hand we could do it with Nuclear and we would expect
Nuclear costs to come down with economies of scale. The problem with
Nuclear is that it is upfront cost and has to fight bull**** and
"something will turn up" arguments. Something may turn up, but I think
it is very rash to rely on it.

Nuclear costs would also fall considerably if the government funded them
as investment and paid it back from selling the electricity, then once
paid back, either dropped the price for each plant in turn, used the
excess it to drop the overall price of electricity or used it to lower
taxes elsewhere.

Instead we rely upon companies borrowing money at much higher rates and
having to agree much higher strike prices to pay the much more expensive
loans back, while making profits.