"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
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. 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. 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.

that was the theory with the first generation builds

In practice, unexpected build and operating costs meant that day when they
had paid for themselves and prices could be reduced, never came

Increasing costs with current generation nukes being built in other
countries suggest that the same will happen with them